Evade vs Parry

[Hex08]

I am re-reading the Combat Maneuvers rules in the Player's Handbook and CK's Guide and am a bit confused regarding the difference between "evade" from the PHB and "parry" from the CKG. To evade you sacrifice your action, don't roll initiative and must announce your intention at the beginning of the round to gain a +4 AC bonus vs one opponent you are facing. To parry you don't roll initiative, can't attack and must announce your intent at the beginning of the round to gain a +4 to AC against all attacks. Am I missing something here? If using the rules from the CKG then why ever evade?

[DMSamuel]

It is up to the CK to determine which types of combat maneuvers are allowed at the table. You are correct that evade seems like a lesser powered option when compared to parry. I can't see a case where the CK would allow BOTH of those - more likely the CK would allow one as an optional combat maneuver.

I think the desire to streamline the maneuver accounts for the slight difference in the two options.

[soullos]

Parry does seem like the more powerful option and more streamlined one too; more powerful than dodge maneuver as well (which is only +2 AC for 3 attacks total). But maybe I'm reading between the lines too much, but with Parry it says you forgo your attacks, but does that mean you can do other things, like move, drink a potion etc.? But then, if you don't roll initiative, how would you know when to act/move, so I guess you don't get any attacks and otherwise. Why not say they forgo their action for the round? Confusing.

[Hex08]

I think I'll just go with using parry and forgo dodge and evade in my games. I''l just replace the can't attack phrasing with can't take any action. Seems easier

[soullos]

Yeah, seems like the best option. Much easier. I'll be doing the same.